Accepted Manuscript

Dataset on the influence of software development agility on software firms’

performance in Bangladesh

Farzana Sadia, Imran Mahmud, Eva Dhar, Nusrat Jahan, Sayeda Sumbul Hossain,
A.K.H.Zaidi Satter
PII: S2352-3409(19)30090-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.103741
Article Number: 103741
Reference: DIB 103741

To appear in: Data in Brief

Received Date: 26 June 2018

Revised Date: 31 January 2019
Accepted Date: 1 February 2019

Please cite this article as: F. Sadia, I. Mahmud, E. Dhar, N. Jahan, S.S. Hossain, A.K.H.Z. Satter,
Dataset on the influence of software development agility on software firms’ performance in Bangladesh,
Data in Brief, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.103741.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Authors: Farzana Sadia1, Imran Mahmud12, Eva Dhar1, Nusrat Jahan1, Sayeda Sumbul Hossain1, A.K. H.
Zaidi Satter1

Affiliations: Daffodil International University1, Universiti Sains Malaysia2

Contact email: sadia.swe@diu.edu.bd, imranmahmud@usm.my, eva-482@diu.edu.bd,

nusrat.swe@diu.edu.bd, syeda.swe@diu.edu.bd, sattar10@daffodilvarsity.edu.bd

PT
Data article

RI
Title: Dataset on the influence of software development agility on software firms’ performance in
Bangladesh

SC
Abstract
The article identifies the relationship among different agile software development approaches
such as response extensiveness, response efficiency, team autonomy, team diversity, and

U
software functionality that software teams face difficult challenges in associating and achieving
AN
the right balance between the two agility dimensions. This research strategy, in terms of
quantity, is descriptive and correlational. Statistical analysis of the data was carried out, using
SmartPLS 3.0. Statistical population, consist of employees of software industries in Bangladesh,
M

who were engaged in 2017 and their total number is about 100 people. The data show that the
response extensiveness, response efficiency, team autonomy, team diversity, and software
functionality have impact on software development agility and software development
D

performance.
TE

Specifications Table
Subject area Software Engineering
More specific subject area Software development agility and software development performance.
EP

Type of data Table, figure

How data was acquired Questionnaire analysis was adopted. SmartPLS 3.0 was used to develop
the model.
Data format Raw, analyze, descriptive, statistical
C

Experimental factors Agile software development approaches, which affirm sense-and-

respond, self-organization and cross-functional teams were considered
AC

to determine the software development agility.

Experimental features
Data source location
Data accessibility
Related research article
The relationship among response extensiveness, response efficiency,
team autonomy, team diversity, and software functionality were
determined
Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Data is with this article
Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: an integrated analysis of
quantitative and qualitative field data on software development
agility. Mis Quarterly, 34(1), 87-114.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Value of the data

• These data describe demographic data in employer of software industry of Bangladesh
and the practices of agile development principles.
• The dataset showed that Software team autonomy significantly influences Software
Team Response Efficiency and Software team diversity significantly influences Software

PT
Team Response Extensiveness.
• These data can be used to improve the factors of agile practices and increase software

RI
development performance in the software industry in Bangladesh.

1 Data

SC
The dataset of this article provides the information on the recent agile software development
approaches. Table 1 shows the demographic details of employers of software companies.

U
Table 1
Demographic characteristic of employers of software companies
AN
Number
Parameter Characteristics (Percentage)
Organizations Software Development &Health 57.4
M

Software Development 25
Banking/Finance/Insurance 2.9
Consulting 5.9
D

Telecommunications 7.4
Government 1.5
TE

Respondents Quality Assurance 4.4

Technical Project Manager 2.9
EP

Lead Test Engineer 1.5

Software Engineer 1.5
Sr. Software Engineer ( android ) 10.3
C

Sr. Software Engineer 8.8

Lead Software Engineer 7.4
AC

Senior Software Engineer (

media ) 8.8
Head of Design 1.5
Technology Lead 5.9
Project Coordinator 1.5
System Analyst 1.5
Technical Writer 5.9
Software Writer 5.9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Software Developer 1.5

Graphics Designer 2.9
Senior Developer 2.9
Developer 13.2
Junior Developer 2.9
Tester 1.5

PT
Work Experience >6 13.2
>1 17.6
4-6 32.4

RI
1-3 36.8
Company Size <5 7.4

SC
21-50 17.6
51-120 75
Budget < 10000 13.6
10000-50000 0

U
50000-100000 22.7
AN
100000-500000 59.1
> 500000 4.5
Project Duration < 3 months 26.5
3 -5 months 45.6
M

> 5 months 26.5

D

2. Experimental Design, Materials, and Methods

TE

20 software firms were chosen from Dhaka, Bangladesh. 160 questionnaires were
distributed and 100 usable questionnaires were returned for analysis. In this study, data were
EP

gathered from all kind of software firms (small, medium, large) as well as a questionnaire [1]
including the demographic data (e.g. qualification, experience). Then, the collected data were
collected, coded and entered into SmartPLs 3.0. Data analysis was performed, using SPSS-21.
C

Data were analyzed; applying descriptive and statistical tests including partial least squares
AC

approach.

2.1 Measurement Model

Table 2 shows that composite reliability and the AVE of all variables are higher than 0.7 and 0.5[2, 3, 4]
respectively, we can state that both criterion accept our five variables.

Table 2
Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of variables
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Composite AVE
Reliability
Software team autonomy (AUT) 0.901 0.695
Software team diversity (DIV) 0.908 0.712
Software Team Response Efficiency (EFI) 0.907 0.625
Software Team Response Extensiveness (EXT) 0.742 0.608

PT
Software functionality(FUN) 0.869 0.625

Table 3 shows that the square root of the average variance where all the values on the diagonals are

RI
greater than the corresponding row and columns. It indicates that the measures are discriminant.

Table 3

SC
Square root of the average variance
AUT DIV EFI EXT FUN
AUT 0.834

U
DIV 0.476 0.844
EFI -0.254 -0.084 0.790
AN
EXT 0.150 0.277 0.096 0.780
FUN 0.170 0.303 -0.211 0.554 0.791
M

2.3 Structural Model

Table 4 presents that in the structural model the significance of the relations among variables is
D

measured by the path coefficient. We found that Software team autonomy (AUT) (β=-0.254 and p<0.05)
significantly influences Software Team Response Efficiency (EFI), Software team diversity (DIV)
TE

(β=0.277and p<0.1) significantly influences Software Team Response Extensiveness (EXT). The
relationship between EFI (β=-0.267and p<0.05) and EXT (β=0.580 and p<0.05) also have significantly
influence on Software functionality (FUN).
EP

Table 4
Path coefficient of the variables
C

Original Sample T Statistics P Values Result

(O) (|O/STDEV|)
AC

AUT -> EFI -0.254 1.737 0.083 Supported*

DIV -> EXT 0.277 2.224 0.027 Supported**
EFI -> FUN -0.267 1.827 0.068 Supported*
EXT -> FUN 0.580 6.748 0.000 Supported**
Note: PLS estimation results (n = 100, **p<0.05, *p<0.1)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

Figure-1: Pictorial representation of table-4.

D

Table 5
Effect size
TE

Effect Size Remark

AUT -> EFI 0.069 Small
DIV -> EXT 0.083 Small
EFI -> FUN 0.114 Small
EP

EXT -> FUN 0.535 Large

The effect was calculated by following Cohen’s effect size estimation [5]. Effect size is
C

considered as small, medium and large if the values are 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 respectively. Next
this study also assessed effect sizes (f2). Besides the path coefficient also the effect size can be
AC

evaluated to control for the respective impact of different variables in one model. In our case,
table 5 shows that AUT and DIV have small effect on EFI and EXT. For the dependent variable
FUN, EFI has small effect comparatively to EXT.

Funding sources

There was no funding sources for this work.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Transparency document. Supplementary material

Appendix A. Supplementary material

References

PT
[1] Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field
data on software development agility. Mis Quarterly, 34(1), 87-114.
[2] Hair, J, F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., &G.Kuppelwieser, V. 2014. Partial least squares structural

RI
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review,
26(2), 106-121.
[3] Mahmud, I., Ramayah, T., &Kurnia, S. (2017). To use or not to use: Modelling end user grumbling

SC
as user resistance in pre-implementation stage of enterprise resource planning system. Information
Systems, 69, 164-179.
[4] Alzahrani, A. I., Mahmud, I., Ramayah, T., Alfarraj, O., &Alalwan, N. (2017). Extending the theory

U
of planned behavior (TPB) to explain online game playing among Malaysian undergraduate
students. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 239-251.
AN
[5] Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd Ed. Lawrenc Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC